“Write a post of at least 200 words comparing the daguerreotype that you handled today at the Brooklyn Historical Society and any digital photograph that you have taken this semester. How does the format change the experience of both taking and viewing photographs?”
I took a photo of my nephew laughing while playing with a colorful pinwheel. The process of how that photo came to be is not really comparable at all to the daguerreotypes that we saw today. I just happened to have had my camera and I saw a moment and I took the shot. It was an unplanned instant moment in time, whereas the daguerreotypes were not captured as quickly, and were premeditated. They took about a whole minute to capture one pose that was supposed to represent one moment. The daguerreotypes were also developed to some extent. The photograph of my nephew is still on my Canon, unprinted/undeveloped. Also, my photo is in color in broad daylight, and is digital. The daguerreotypes were black and white, indoors, and were produced on a mirror-like plate that was reflective and almost holographic, and were overall hard to see. Lastly, if I printed out the photo I took, the default size would be larger than that of the daguerreotypes, which were wallet-sized and framed. Even then, I could re-size the photo I took to pretty much any size I want to. The only real similarity would be the fact that they are both images, to some extent, of an actual person. Even then, my nephew is 1.5 years old and most of the daguerreotypes were of older people and I didn’t see any of small children or babies.
